Apple, the Beatles and the media
31/03/06 09:36 Media
issues Permalink
You might have noticed that Apple Computer and the
Beatles are back in court, arguing about who owns the
rights to the 'Apple' trademark when it comes to
music. Apple Computer says it can distribute digital
content, the surviving Beatles are saying naff off
Apple Corps set up in the sixties as a music company
so music and Apple is ours.
I don't want to comment on a court case that's ongoing, of course, but the media's reaction is interesting. Suddenly Apple Computer is portrayed as the villain - they've had a few judgements in France going against them, too, about rights management, so they're ripe for a kicking.
This is all too familiar in the IT industry and elsewhere. You might remember 15 years or so ago that even starting a word processor wasn't all that straightforward - you had to enter the right commands, you wouldn't have had one at home, you'd probably need some elementary training. Micosoft put a stop to that with Windows; just about anyone can operate a computer now, and within a few years Microsoft was predictably being criticised for achieving this. Skip a few years and we come to Google, the golden people of simple searching, and who have met with adverse publicity as they've grown simply because they're big.
And now it's Apple's turn. In this instance there are no issues surrounding anti-trust rulings as in the Microsoft case, nor any pervasiveness in computing as in Google - but they're suddenly very successful as a music distributor. So the press is having a go.
One day we've got to stop doing this to companies unless we believe they've actually done something wrong...
I don't want to comment on a court case that's ongoing, of course, but the media's reaction is interesting. Suddenly Apple Computer is portrayed as the villain - they've had a few judgements in France going against them, too, about rights management, so they're ripe for a kicking.
This is all too familiar in the IT industry and elsewhere. You might remember 15 years or so ago that even starting a word processor wasn't all that straightforward - you had to enter the right commands, you wouldn't have had one at home, you'd probably need some elementary training. Micosoft put a stop to that with Windows; just about anyone can operate a computer now, and within a few years Microsoft was predictably being criticised for achieving this. Skip a few years and we come to Google, the golden people of simple searching, and who have met with adverse publicity as they've grown simply because they're big.
And now it's Apple's turn. In this instance there are no issues surrounding anti-trust rulings as in the Microsoft case, nor any pervasiveness in computing as in Google - but they're suddenly very successful as a music distributor. So the press is having a go.
One day we've got to stop doing this to companies unless we believe they've actually done something wrong...
|
I haven't got one of these badges, but...
30/03/06 16:01 Coffee machine moments
Permalink
If I
did
have a
Blue Peter Badge
I'd consider it my property. That is, I would be
allowed to sell the thing if I wished to and I'd
thank everyone for not telling me I may not do so.
Unless there's some sort of license agreement when
you acquire one of the things I can't see any legal
basis on which MPs should ban the sale of the things.
You'll notice they aren't trying to stop people selling lordships. Unless they're politicians of course.
You'll notice they aren't trying to stop people selling lordships. Unless they're politicians of course.
Cor, what a scoop...
29/03/06 14:19 Coffee machine moments
Permalink
So, former 007 Sir Roger Moore has told a paper that
he doesn't like guns and that's so important
that
Reuters has reported
it.
We'll leave aside that anyone with an urban lifestyle who likes guns or can find much of a use for them outside of police work is likely to raise a quizzical eyebrow (it's different in the countryside of course, where they have legitimate uses for vermin etc). We'll even leave aside that someone thinks it's a story when an actor has an opinion that doesn't match that of the character he's played, which to me sounds a bit obvious.
What I can't get over is that Sir Rodge has been making this point for about 30 years. He says it in his book on the making of "Live and Let Die", his first Bond film.
So, nice one Reuters. Now, I've got this story about the Titanic if you're interested..?
We'll leave aside that anyone with an urban lifestyle who likes guns or can find much of a use for them outside of police work is likely to raise a quizzical eyebrow (it's different in the countryside of course, where they have legitimate uses for vermin etc). We'll even leave aside that someone thinks it's a story when an actor has an opinion that doesn't match that of the character he's played, which to me sounds a bit obvious.
What I can't get over is that Sir Rodge has been making this point for about 30 years. He says it in his book on the making of "Live and Let Die", his first Bond film.
So, nice one Reuters. Now, I've got this story about the Titanic if you're interested..?
One admires the nerve, but...
28/03/06 09:00 Permalink
I've just seen a website by a fellow journalist. I
see no reason not to direct everyone's attention to
it - it's
here.
Across the top of it is the comment that if anyone wants to donate money to the site to make it look better they're welcome to send them via Nochex or PayPal.
He tells me he's had 50p so far. Mind you, if anyone wanted to send donations towards this site, by all means...no, it's no use. I just haven't got the nerve.
Across the top of it is the comment that if anyone wants to donate money to the site to make it look better they're welcome to send them via Nochex or PayPal.
He tells me he's had 50p so far. Mind you, if anyone wanted to send donations towards this site, by all means...no, it's no use. I just haven't got the nerve.
What I wish I'd said, by Tony Blair's PR engine
27/03/06 09:50 Media
issues Permalink
The Prime Minister's comments reported this morning
are clear enough - there's a video link on
this page
in which you can see him admitting that the
announcement that he would not serve a complete third
term may have been a mistake. That's not what the
Express says he said of course; that paper says he
said it was a 'total catastrophe' which, although he
and some others might think it, is a complete
misrepresentation of his actual words.
What I find hilarious about this is Downing Street's attempt to come into the story later and 'clarify' things. The radio this morning was full of whoever 'Downing Street' actually comprises. Currently Downing Street is saying what he meant was the announcement rather than the decision not to stand, which is fair. Earlier a report on BBC London said Downing Street had denied he'd said he made a mistake.
Unfortunately for Downing Street they've had to stop that, because what he said is actually on tape and the audio is now doing the rounds. My life as a reporter is frequently made difficult by people in PR or marketing telling me what was actually said in an interview they didn't attend. Years ago I was berated by the marketing manager of a computer distributor because one of his colleagues 'didn't say' something I'd quoted. Well actually, he did, I told them, and you weren't on the call so you wouldn't know about this. But I've spoken to him, came the reply.
It's easy to say something you didn't actually mean when you're put on the spot, anyone can understand that. During a media training session once I used the old 'silence' trick to see whether the MD would fill the gap by waffling, and he accidentally told me his company was in merger talks with a telecoms company (he watched the tape later in disbelief, conceding that he'd said it but stressing, even in confidence, that it just wasn't true and he didn't know how he'd ended up saying it). Had this been a real interview he would almost certainly have lost his job as a result. He was reasonable enough to concede that this would have been his own fault. Not everyone does so. On another occasion I was accused of fabricating a story that a printer manufacturer had been involved in a 'row'. There was no row, said the MD, this is a lie - when he'd stood up at a public press conference the week before and said there had been 'bloodletting' in the boardroom.
If people would be honest enough to admit they gave a wrong impression, over-egged a story to gain more attention or if they were to say they wanted to bring a bigger point out and hoped for a chance to do so, that would be one thing. If there are any PRs reading, though, please please educate your clients. Tell them that if they genuinely didn't say something they need to make this clear, but if they mean 'I wish I hadn't said that' then they need to take a vastly different approach if they want any sort of amendment published.
What I find hilarious about this is Downing Street's attempt to come into the story later and 'clarify' things. The radio this morning was full of whoever 'Downing Street' actually comprises. Currently Downing Street is saying what he meant was the announcement rather than the decision not to stand, which is fair. Earlier a report on BBC London said Downing Street had denied he'd said he made a mistake.
Unfortunately for Downing Street they've had to stop that, because what he said is actually on tape and the audio is now doing the rounds. My life as a reporter is frequently made difficult by people in PR or marketing telling me what was actually said in an interview they didn't attend. Years ago I was berated by the marketing manager of a computer distributor because one of his colleagues 'didn't say' something I'd quoted. Well actually, he did, I told them, and you weren't on the call so you wouldn't know about this. But I've spoken to him, came the reply.
It's easy to say something you didn't actually mean when you're put on the spot, anyone can understand that. During a media training session once I used the old 'silence' trick to see whether the MD would fill the gap by waffling, and he accidentally told me his company was in merger talks with a telecoms company (he watched the tape later in disbelief, conceding that he'd said it but stressing, even in confidence, that it just wasn't true and he didn't know how he'd ended up saying it). Had this been a real interview he would almost certainly have lost his job as a result. He was reasonable enough to concede that this would have been his own fault. Not everyone does so. On another occasion I was accused of fabricating a story that a printer manufacturer had been involved in a 'row'. There was no row, said the MD, this is a lie - when he'd stood up at a public press conference the week before and said there had been 'bloodletting' in the boardroom.
If people would be honest enough to admit they gave a wrong impression, over-egged a story to gain more attention or if they were to say they wanted to bring a bigger point out and hoped for a chance to do so, that would be one thing. If there are any PRs reading, though, please please educate your clients. Tell them that if they genuinely didn't say something they need to make this clear, but if they mean 'I wish I hadn't said that' then they need to take a vastly different approach if they want any sort of amendment published.
Norman Kember and the art of spin
25/03/06 14:29 Media
issues Permalink
Forgive me for not beginning an entry with 'So', but
this Norman Kember row - the one about whether he
should have
thanked his rescuers
- is interesting from the media's point of view. In
fact I believe it's entirely because of the media
that it's become an issue at all. Norman Kember, you
see, probably did thank his rescuers and his
organisation is protesting precisely that today. What
he didn't do was to thank them in public, and for
that he is being criticised heavily.
Let's get the obvious out of the way first. I am glad that he is free. But why, do you suppose, did he not pay tribute to the armed forces immediately?
My own view is that this is media manipulation gone wrong. Kember's group, the Christian Peacemakers. pointedly thanked everyone except the soldiers who rescued him yesterday. There's only one possible reason for this omission: the group felt that they had an opportunity to promote their anti-war stance and this was the only day on which they could do it. Kember's release put them into the headlines and the story they didn't want to read was 'Thanks, Army' - they wanted their case to be put. And they had to do it yesterday because once he's home and safe he ceases to be big news.
So, with my media training hat on I can see why they didn't dilute their message. Thank the peacemakers and peace keepers, their media guru would have instructed. Don't mention the army or the Mail or someone will have an 'I needed the army after all' style headline. This is all standard interview practice; concentrate on three key points you want to get across and don't allow anyone to move from them or else your message will become confused.
Unfortunately they forgot to factor in that war was happening and lives had been risked to save Mr. Kember. With hindsight you wonder how they managed not to anticipate the huge and inevitable backlash they're now facing. This is what happens, I believe, when media manipulation is attempted by anyone other than an expert. Common sense has to play its part and you need to anticipate the negative aspect of any spin you try to put on a story.
So it is that Norman Kember has arrived home to a welcome but also to a controversy. He and his group are now claiming they did thank the armed forces and will do so again, but it doesn't sound all that convincing and the comments and statements from yesterday are still around for anyone to inspect. The army were not, repeat not, thanked in public.
This is spin gone disastrously wrong, and if Kember had a distinct point to make other than 'I don't like this war' it's been pretty much lost by now.
Let's get the obvious out of the way first. I am glad that he is free. But why, do you suppose, did he not pay tribute to the armed forces immediately?
My own view is that this is media manipulation gone wrong. Kember's group, the Christian Peacemakers. pointedly thanked everyone except the soldiers who rescued him yesterday. There's only one possible reason for this omission: the group felt that they had an opportunity to promote their anti-war stance and this was the only day on which they could do it. Kember's release put them into the headlines and the story they didn't want to read was 'Thanks, Army' - they wanted their case to be put. And they had to do it yesterday because once he's home and safe he ceases to be big news.
So, with my media training hat on I can see why they didn't dilute their message. Thank the peacemakers and peace keepers, their media guru would have instructed. Don't mention the army or the Mail or someone will have an 'I needed the army after all' style headline. This is all standard interview practice; concentrate on three key points you want to get across and don't allow anyone to move from them or else your message will become confused.
Unfortunately they forgot to factor in that war was happening and lives had been risked to save Mr. Kember. With hindsight you wonder how they managed not to anticipate the huge and inevitable backlash they're now facing. This is what happens, I believe, when media manipulation is attempted by anyone other than an expert. Common sense has to play its part and you need to anticipate the negative aspect of any spin you try to put on a story.
So it is that Norman Kember has arrived home to a welcome but also to a controversy. He and his group are now claiming they did thank the armed forces and will do so again, but it doesn't sound all that convincing and the comments and statements from yesterday are still around for anyone to inspect. The army were not, repeat not, thanked in public.
This is spin gone disastrously wrong, and if Kember had a distinct point to make other than 'I don't like this war' it's been pretty much lost by now.
Certifiable news
21/03/06 16:44 Media
issues Permalink
Those DVDs are catching up with the papers again.
Today on the radio - not for the first time - the
news said the newpapers are being asked to be clear
about the certificate of the films they give away as
promotions so that the newsagents don't end up
selling 15s to minors, or whatever.
That's fine and laudable, and if any newsagents who happen to be reading can confirm they're being given training and extra money to handle the extra workload of examining everyone who so much as buys a damned paper I'll be very pleased. Surprised, but pleased.
That's fine and laudable, and if any newsagents who happen to be reading can confirm they're being given training and extra money to handle the extra workload of examining everyone who so much as buys a damned paper I'll be very pleased. Surprised, but pleased.
Telegraph needs Patience
20/03/06 09:49 Coffee machine moments
Permalink
You might recall on the 8th of this month I wrote a
blog entry on the Sunday Telegraph having poached
Patience Wheatcroft from the Times to be its new
editor.
Well, she's not there yet. The Times is enforcing her notice period so she should be resting at home if she has any sense, psyching herself up for her new post. Or should she? The Guardian's Media Monkey column has picked up a rumour, denied by all, that she's actually going to be re-poached as editor of the Sunday Times, with ST editor John Witherow promoted upstairs.
Denials are flying around from everybody concerned. But If I were Patience Wheatcroft I think I'd be enjoying the idea that everyone found the suggestion so credible - and I might well be talking up my salary with either side.
Well, she's not there yet. The Times is enforcing her notice period so she should be resting at home if she has any sense, psyching herself up for her new post. Or should she? The Guardian's Media Monkey column has picked up a rumour, denied by all, that she's actually going to be re-poached as editor of the Sunday Times, with ST editor John Witherow promoted upstairs.
Denials are flying around from everybody concerned. But If I were Patience Wheatcroft I think I'd be enjoying the idea that everyone found the suggestion so credible - and I might well be talking up my salary with either side.
Send me your money, you might as well
17/03/06 10:52 Coffee machine moments
Permalink
OK, just seen this on the
BBC's website.
A production company is charging people $9.95 to
see a programme in which they're going to have a
seance to get in touch with John Lennon.
I have a few points about this. First, it won't work; if you must waste your money there are better causes or I'll take it and squander it quite happily - I'll fail to put you in touch with Lennon just like the producers will.
Second, what if somehow it worked? What's he going to say? 'Yeah, I know I've been gone over 25 years but I've been writing these songs just in case, and what's an iPod?'
Don't get me wrong, I'm as dismayed as anyone outside his own circle of friends and family that Lennon died so early. But I really don't understand why people are falling for this, or indeed what they think an entertainer who hasn't been around for a quarter of a century would have to say in public about the world in 2006.
I have a few points about this. First, it won't work; if you must waste your money there are better causes or I'll take it and squander it quite happily - I'll fail to put you in touch with Lennon just like the producers will.
Second, what if somehow it worked? What's he going to say? 'Yeah, I know I've been gone over 25 years but I've been writing these songs just in case, and what's an iPod?'
Don't get me wrong, I'm as dismayed as anyone outside his own circle of friends and family that Lennon died so early. But I really don't understand why people are falling for this, or indeed what they think an entertainer who hasn't been around for a quarter of a century would have to say in public about the world in 2006.
Comment is free
16/03/06 13:13 Media
issues Permalink
The Guardian has launched its new comment site with
bloggers selected from its columnists. Called
Comment is Free
you can find it by clicking on that link.
The writing is up to a professional standard of course, and the debate ought to be robust. Thing is, it's not. Hardly anyone had put any reactions down when I posted this entry, in the two days since it launched. OK, hardly anyone comments on this blog either but I don't have the marketing muscle of the Guardian behind me to attract readers.
A couple of things could happen. First it could get better, which I'd welcome. Second, though, we could be on the cusp of discovering that people prefer blogs from amateurs and papers from professionals.
That is of course a wild guess. But at this early stage we really don't know how this blog thing is going to pan out.
P. S. Davinia's ratings were down again last night - 2.3 million in spite of the timeslot change.
The writing is up to a professional standard of course, and the debate ought to be robust. Thing is, it's not. Hardly anyone had put any reactions down when I posted this entry, in the two days since it launched. OK, hardly anyone comments on this blog either but I don't have the marketing muscle of the Guardian behind me to attract readers.
A couple of things could happen. First it could get better, which I'd welcome. Second, though, we could be on the cusp of discovering that people prefer blogs from amateurs and papers from professionals.
That is of course a wild guess. But at this early stage we really don't know how this blog thing is going to pan out.
P. S. Davinia's ratings were down again last night - 2.3 million in spite of the timeslot change.
Regulating the BBC
15/03/06 10:15 Admin
notes Permalink
Been a little quiet over the last couple of days - a
bloke's got to work sometimes!
The big noise in the media at the moment is the regulation of the BBC. The regime is going to change as it does every few years, and as a publicly-funded body it's right that the thing should be kept under some scrutiny.
The problem is how you define public service broadcasting. My favourite programmes on the BBC currently include The Apprentice, I'll be missing watching Dick and Dom in da Bungalow with my family and of course there's the one-off plays that are coming back. (I knew I could make that list without mentioning Doctor Who somehow!) I'd be distressed if they were all taken off the air tomorrow, but I honestly can't think of a single reason they should be paid for by the public rather than the private sector. Stuff like Question Time, Planet Earth and the superb news services are different; they serve a distinct function.
My guess is that it will become increasingly difficult to justify a license-fee-funded BBC that entertains rather than informs as time goes on. The only justification at the moment seems to be that the BBC is damned good at it and the competition, for the moment, has fewer hits. For me that's good enough, and I regard the license fee as good value, but I'm acutely aware that 'Guy doesn't think it needs to change' isn't a great argument when it comes to public finances!
The big noise in the media at the moment is the regulation of the BBC. The regime is going to change as it does every few years, and as a publicly-funded body it's right that the thing should be kept under some scrutiny.
The problem is how you define public service broadcasting. My favourite programmes on the BBC currently include The Apprentice, I'll be missing watching Dick and Dom in da Bungalow with my family and of course there's the one-off plays that are coming back. (I knew I could make that list without mentioning Doctor Who somehow!) I'd be distressed if they were all taken off the air tomorrow, but I honestly can't think of a single reason they should be paid for by the public rather than the private sector. Stuff like Question Time, Planet Earth and the superb news services are different; they serve a distinct function.
My guess is that it will become increasingly difficult to justify a license-fee-funded BBC that entertains rather than informs as time goes on. The only justification at the moment seems to be that the BBC is damned good at it and the competition, for the moment, has fewer hits. For me that's good enough, and I regard the license fee as good value, but I'm acutely aware that 'Guy doesn't think it needs to change' isn't a great argument when it comes to public finances!
OK, I was wrong, Davina's got to go
10/03/06 10:24 Coffee machine moments
Permalink
A week or so ago (3 March, down the page if you're
really interested) I was saying how Davina McCall's
chat show should be preserved. The BBC needs to get
back into the swing of sticking with ideas that don't
appear to be working like they used to, and to
produce some hits in the process, I said.
Well, it's bombing even worse than it did at first. The Daily Mail reports figures of 2.5 million, which is truly abysmal for prime time when the evenings are dark and cold (it would still be poor in the summer but perhaps more understandable).
The BBC is moving the show earlier in the evening, which I'd guess would be a prelude to deciding against recommissioning it. I watched it on Wednesday and I have to say it's not great; Davina has this rather aggressive manner which means she can make 'good evening' sound like a threat, which is one thing when you're a journalist trying to get a story out of a reluctant interviewee but another entirely when you're basically producing a cosy thing about showbiz.
It's mis-firing. I was wrong. We don't need this programme on the airwaves for any longer than is contractually necessary. Meanwhile could I recommend The Apprentice to anyone who's not yet watching, as an example of how to select and sack entirely the wrong people week in, week out...
Well, it's bombing even worse than it did at first. The Daily Mail reports figures of 2.5 million, which is truly abysmal for prime time when the evenings are dark and cold (it would still be poor in the summer but perhaps more understandable).
The BBC is moving the show earlier in the evening, which I'd guess would be a prelude to deciding against recommissioning it. I watched it on Wednesday and I have to say it's not great; Davina has this rather aggressive manner which means she can make 'good evening' sound like a threat, which is one thing when you're a journalist trying to get a story out of a reluctant interviewee but another entirely when you're basically producing a cosy thing about showbiz.
It's mis-firing. I was wrong. We don't need this programme on the airwaves for any longer than is contractually necessary. Meanwhile could I recommend The Apprentice to anyone who's not yet watching, as an example of how to select and sack entirely the wrong people week in, week out...
Spinning too many plates
09/03/06 09:51 Coffee machine moments
Permalink
You might think that being an MP was a full-time job.
You might think being a party leader, albeit a small
party, was also likely to take up a lot of time.
Apparently not, though. George Galloway is now going to host a talk show on Talk Sport, this being after raising his profile SORRY engaging the masses in politics through his appearance on Big Brother.
Interestingly Boris Johnson found he couldn't edit the Spectator and remain on the Tory front benches, but Galloway seems to see no problem in having this many extramural jobs.
I should add that if anyone wants a radio presenter who's equally inexperienced and unencumbered with any pesky obligations as an elected representative, I'm available and probably cheaper. And I've even done some journalism, which would be a start.
Apparently not, though. George Galloway is now going to host a talk show on Talk Sport, this being after raising his profile SORRY engaging the masses in politics through his appearance on Big Brother.
Interestingly Boris Johnson found he couldn't edit the Spectator and remain on the Tory front benches, but Galloway seems to see no problem in having this many extramural jobs.
I should add that if anyone wants a radio presenter who's equally inexperienced and unencumbered with any pesky obligations as an elected representative, I'm available and probably cheaper. And I've even done some journalism, which would be a start.
So what would you do with the Sunday Telegraph..?
08/03/06 08:28 Admin
notes Permalink
I see the Sunday Telegraph has lost its editor and
gained a new one according to a report in
today's
Guardian Unlimited
(I haven't seen the hard copy edition yet, it might
well be there too).
To me, the question facing the Telegraph, daily and Sunday incarnations, is how to capitalise on the apparent resurgence of the Conservative Party. Whatever your politics there can be no doubt that intending to vote Conservative isn't the taboo it appeared to be in 1992, when all the polls said Labour would win by a landslide and they didn't. People wouldn't admit they were actually going to vote Conservative, even when talking to anonymous pollsters, and it's taken all this time for someone to address that feeling.
And there are few really Conservative newspapers left. In the eighties everyone bar the Guardian, the Mirror and the Indie appeared to support Margaret Thatcher; although he takes a critical beating there are few people advocating any serious alternative to Tony Blair. Whether David Cameron's credibility is media hype or not remains to be established (and the results of recent byelections suggests he's not shaken the voters up as much as the papers appeared to believe) but his star appears to be rising for the moment. It's no longer embarrassing to be considering voting Tory.
Meanwhile the Telegraph and the Mail are by now the last of the Tory supporters in the mainstream press. Getting rid of the Sunday editor Sarah Sands at such short notice might seem harsh, but now of all times they can't afford to be anything other than very strong indeed. Whether changing the editor will do the trick has yet to be seen; everyone else has changed format, radically, making the Telegraph in both its incarnations look a little elderly. It should be rescuable, and it will be interesting to see whether Patience Wheatcroft is the editor to fix it on a Sunday.
To me, the question facing the Telegraph, daily and Sunday incarnations, is how to capitalise on the apparent resurgence of the Conservative Party. Whatever your politics there can be no doubt that intending to vote Conservative isn't the taboo it appeared to be in 1992, when all the polls said Labour would win by a landslide and they didn't. People wouldn't admit they were actually going to vote Conservative, even when talking to anonymous pollsters, and it's taken all this time for someone to address that feeling.
And there are few really Conservative newspapers left. In the eighties everyone bar the Guardian, the Mirror and the Indie appeared to support Margaret Thatcher; although he takes a critical beating there are few people advocating any serious alternative to Tony Blair. Whether David Cameron's credibility is media hype or not remains to be established (and the results of recent byelections suggests he's not shaken the voters up as much as the papers appeared to believe) but his star appears to be rising for the moment. It's no longer embarrassing to be considering voting Tory.
Meanwhile the Telegraph and the Mail are by now the last of the Tory supporters in the mainstream press. Getting rid of the Sunday editor Sarah Sands at such short notice might seem harsh, but now of all times they can't afford to be anything other than very strong indeed. Whether changing the editor will do the trick has yet to be seen; everyone else has changed format, radically, making the Telegraph in both its incarnations look a little elderly. It should be rescuable, and it will be interesting to see whether Patience Wheatcroft is the editor to fix it on a Sunday.
A good competitor
07/03/06 16:12 Journalism in practice
Permalink
Another day, another freelance opens a blog. This
one's rather good and can be found
here
- I have reservations about soeone using a pseudonym
for something as personal as a freelance's blog, but
the content is difficult to disagree with in places.
The one about freelances being advised not to bank
cheques when they have to sign their rights away on
the back of them has a particularly familiar ring to
it - the difference being I'll put my hand up and say
so.
Anyone who knows who Les actually is, if indeed he's only one person, is of course welcome to get in touch...
Anyone who knows who Les actually is, if indeed he's only one person, is of course welcome to get in touch...
Spamming
07/03/06 09:38 Coffee machine moments
Permalink
Just a quick housekeeping note today - as you might
have noticed, this blog is under attack from some
automated spammers. I'm clearing them as quickly as I
can - at least they're comparatively decent if
irritating.
Hopefully the comment system will deal with them in time as it's calibrated to do so; in the meantime please accept my apologies if you're on the RSS feed and you find your box gets stuffed with all this nonsense.
Hopefully the comment system will deal with them in time as it's calibrated to do so; in the meantime please accept my apologies if you're on the RSS feed and you find your box gets stuffed with all this nonsense.
Trial separations
06/03/06 10:09 Coffee machine moments
Permalink
OK, so Tessa Jowell and her husband are separating.
Their friends are telling the media that it's
appallingly cynical to accuse them of making the
announcement to placate the media and restore
Jowell's fading star.
But there are a couple of features of the announcement that give me pause to wonder.
First, the timing. 9.30 on a Saturday morning is, as Vanessa Feltz is pointing out on BBC London even as I type, the ideal time to get your story big in the Sunday papers. Even if the timing wasn't manipulated, it couldn't have been better from the coverage point of view.
Second, the announcement said they hoped to get back together sometime. Now, you can never see inside someone's marriage, of course you can't - but I can't imagine that dangling the 'will we get back together or won't we' question that blatantly in public would be done by someone who hasn't already got at least a pretty good idea of the answer.
I don't know whether I hope I'm right or not. If I'm right, they're being manipulative to protect a position. If I'm wrong, someone's marriage is genuinely up a well-known creek. I can't say I'm smitten with either possibility.
So, sorry Tessa, but this does indeed look like posturing. And yes, someone is being cynical here, but if I'm right it's not the media.
But there are a couple of features of the announcement that give me pause to wonder.
First, the timing. 9.30 on a Saturday morning is, as Vanessa Feltz is pointing out on BBC London even as I type, the ideal time to get your story big in the Sunday papers. Even if the timing wasn't manipulated, it couldn't have been better from the coverage point of view.
Second, the announcement said they hoped to get back together sometime. Now, you can never see inside someone's marriage, of course you can't - but I can't imagine that dangling the 'will we get back together or won't we' question that blatantly in public would be done by someone who hasn't already got at least a pretty good idea of the answer.
I don't know whether I hope I'm right or not. If I'm right, they're being manipulative to protect a position. If I'm wrong, someone's marriage is genuinely up a well-known creek. I can't say I'm smitten with either possibility.
So, sorry Tessa, but this does indeed look like posturing. And yes, someone is being cynical here, but if I'm right it's not the media.
Tony Blair and God
04/03/06 11:43 Media
issues Permalink
So, Tony Blair is being criticised for relying on God
as a fallback for justifying the war in Iraq. OK,
let's criticise the decision by all means, but let's
also look at the context of Blair's comments - you
can see them on Parkinson tonight in full.
From the clips on the news, however, Blair's initial statement was that others would judge whether he was right to send the country to war. Pressed a little, he was asked whether he had prayed. He said yes, and Parky - bless him - asked whether he'd prayed to God.
Now, whatever your religious standpoint, that's a daft question. If you're going to pray then by all means let's pray to God. He's well known for accepting prayers as some sort of divine right. If you insist on praying, God's the very man to act as recipient. It's better use of your mental energy than, say, praying to a cheese and tomato sandwich.
But Blair still hedged, saying he didn't really want to go into all that - and pressed again, he said yes, he'd prayed to God.
Then you get the headlines - Blair prayed to God about Iraq war, which makes it look as though he said it straight out and was using it as some sort of justification. And the criticism starts.
But that's not the way it came out. Blair may well have been appallingly wrong about the war, or he may not, but something of which he is not guilty is of dodging the notion that he's responsible for what has happened. From what I saw on the news from him rather than the headlines, he takes that very seriously indeed.
Do yourself a favour - watch the interview first, then check this article in the Daily Mail. By all means disagree with Blair, but there's no way that article or any of the others adopting its standpoint and tone reflects what's actually going on here.
From the clips on the news, however, Blair's initial statement was that others would judge whether he was right to send the country to war. Pressed a little, he was asked whether he had prayed. He said yes, and Parky - bless him - asked whether he'd prayed to God.
Now, whatever your religious standpoint, that's a daft question. If you're going to pray then by all means let's pray to God. He's well known for accepting prayers as some sort of divine right. If you insist on praying, God's the very man to act as recipient. It's better use of your mental energy than, say, praying to a cheese and tomato sandwich.
But Blair still hedged, saying he didn't really want to go into all that - and pressed again, he said yes, he'd prayed to God.
Then you get the headlines - Blair prayed to God about Iraq war, which makes it look as though he said it straight out and was using it as some sort of justification. And the criticism starts.
But that's not the way it came out. Blair may well have been appallingly wrong about the war, or he may not, but something of which he is not guilty is of dodging the notion that he's responsible for what has happened. From what I saw on the news from him rather than the headlines, he takes that very seriously indeed.
Do yourself a favour - watch the interview first, then check this article in the Daily Mail. By all means disagree with Blair, but there's no way that article or any of the others adopting its standpoint and tone reflects what's actually going on here.
Davina McCall - should they scrap the show?
03/03/06 13:44 Coffee machine moments
Permalink
This is actually not an easy question to answer. The
ratings militate against continuing the BBC's
Davina
chat show - click that link to see just how many
people are switching off in the middle of it.
And yet, the BBC has a track record of standing by shows that are apparently doing badly. If they'd taken the short-termist, it's-not-doing-well-so-we-scrap-it view, we'd have lost Only Fools and Horses, One Foot in the Grave and a lot of other shows. We did lose Trevor's World of Sport, which had the potential to become an extremely funny show.
So perhaps unusually for someone who can't stick McCall, I'm going to suggest it's worth keeping it on to see whether the audience picks up. Personally I don't think it will, but it would be good to see the BBC investing some time in an idea again.
And yet, the BBC has a track record of standing by shows that are apparently doing badly. If they'd taken the short-termist, it's-not-doing-well-so-we-scrap-it view, we'd have lost Only Fools and Horses, One Foot in the Grave and a lot of other shows. We did lose Trevor's World of Sport, which had the potential to become an extremely funny show.
So perhaps unusually for someone who can't stick McCall, I'm going to suggest it's worth keeping it on to see whether the audience picks up. Personally I don't think it will, but it would be good to see the BBC investing some time in an idea again.
Another day, another revival
01/03/06 16:45 Media
issues Permalink
...but this is a good one. The BBC is at last
admitting it made a mistake in canceling one of its
biggest hitters and reinstating the
"Play for
Today"
strand.
People of a certain age, about 40 like me, will remember a lot of these plays very fondly. Generations of writers including Dennis Potter and (I think) Jack Rosenthal were able to present one-off dramas and it wasn't thought all that extraordinary that they were doing so. It was simply good quality drama, the sort of thing television was for. If you doubt it then look at the current run of "Play for Today" repeats running on BBC4.
New writers getting the same opportunity in 2006 is fabulous news. I can't help feeling, though, with the return of Brucie and Doctor Who to Saturday nights and now this, that the last 20 years have been a bit of a waste of time in cultural terms.
People of a certain age, about 40 like me, will remember a lot of these plays very fondly. Generations of writers including Dennis Potter and (I think) Jack Rosenthal were able to present one-off dramas and it wasn't thought all that extraordinary that they were doing so. It was simply good quality drama, the sort of thing television was for. If you doubt it then look at the current run of "Play for Today" repeats running on BBC4.
New writers getting the same opportunity in 2006 is fabulous news. I can't help feeling, though, with the return of Brucie and Doctor Who to Saturday nights and now this, that the last 20 years have been a bit of a waste of time in cultural terms.
Linda Smith
01/03/06 10:48 Coffee machine moments
Permalink
This is dismal.
Linda Smith has
died,
aged 48.
I didn't know her, or anything, but she was very much around when I was working on Week Ending, the News Huddlines and a couple of other radio shows in the mid-1990s. Radio 4 was a great place to be at the time, probably still is, and I miss it like mad. Anyway, Linda Smith was one of those people you just admired. She sounded ordinary, she didn't have any showbizzy airs and she could dissect an issue hilariously without apparent preparation.
That said, a lot of talented people die, so I don't know why this one's affected me particularly. Maybe it's because she was so good at what she did; maybe it's because I adopted her as a bit of a role model when I was trying to break into comedy writing, maybe it's because she was exactly what Radio 4 needed so often when its light entertainment started sounding complacent, but I'm going to miss her. 48 is far, far too young.
I didn't know her, or anything, but she was very much around when I was working on Week Ending, the News Huddlines and a couple of other radio shows in the mid-1990s. Radio 4 was a great place to be at the time, probably still is, and I miss it like mad. Anyway, Linda Smith was one of those people you just admired. She sounded ordinary, she didn't have any showbizzy airs and she could dissect an issue hilariously without apparent preparation.
That said, a lot of talented people die, so I don't know why this one's affected me particularly. Maybe it's because she was so good at what she did; maybe it's because I adopted her as a bit of a role model when I was trying to break into comedy writing, maybe it's because she was exactly what Radio 4 needed so often when its light entertainment started sounding complacent, but I'm going to miss her. 48 is far, far too young.